How much more dominant Soviets would have been
View Single Post
03-01-2014, 02:06 AM
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto, ON
Originally Posted by
They "dominated" the tournaments they cared about most. That's pretty indisputable. I get your shtick. Canada is awesome. Cool. Good for them. I'm just saying show a little bit of respect. This whole "LOL AMATEUERZZZZZ" is a sad display of class from some posters. It's too bad Hasek took the gold medal game in Nagano '98 (not a true "best on best" as you all like to say as Russia was missing some notable players)... if that's what it would take to validate how strong the Soviet hockey program was.
just because a team LOSES doesn't mean they didn't play admirably and put on an excellent display of hockey ability.
If all you take away from the '72 Summit Series is CANADA RULEZ USSR DROOLZ then you weren't paying enough attention.
I don't think you're paying attention. It's impossible to lose and be dominant. They are opposites. If you lose a tournament, you didn't dominate said tournament. Likewise, even if you win a tournament, you may not have dominated it. For instance, the '72 Summit Series was a win for Canada, but hardly a dominant one. The only tournaments that the Soviets "dominated" were ones where the only team capable of giving them an actual challenge was put at an insurmountable disadvantage. This really isn't hard to understand. Again, if I were you, I'd start
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TonsofPuppies*